> From: Andrew Morton [mailto:akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:27 PM > To: Dan Magenheimer > Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 3/4] mm: frontswap: add swap hooks and extend try_to_unuse > > On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:49:29 -0700 > Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > -static int try_to_unuse(unsigned int type) > > +int try_to_unuse(unsigned int type, bool frontswap, > > Are patches 2 and 3 in the wrong order? No, they've applied in that order and built after each patch properly for well over a year. At a minimum, frontswap.h must be created before patch 3of4, though I suppose the introduction of frontswap.c could be after patch 3of4... Note that frontswap.c (which calls try_to_unuse()) is non-functional (and isn't even built) until after patch 4of4 is applied. There is enough interdependency between the four parts that perhaps it should all be a single commit. I split it up for reviewer's convenience but apparently different reviewers use different review processes than I anticipated. :-} Bottom line though: yes, bisecting at any point in the patchset does work properly. Dan -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href